<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The documents to be released Friday confirm what a McClatchy investigation revealed in October _ that pressure from top ratings-agency executives to retain market share and the fees that it brought meant that ratings on complex deals were malleable. Some fees were as high as $1.4 million.

The agencies rate the quality of financial products such as bonds and serve as guides trusted by investors. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Many of the bonds they rated as top-quality in the recent crisis turned out to be junk. The fallout from their deference to Wall Street's financial firms was a housing collapse that triggered a global financial crisis.</span>

In one example obtained by the committee, Yvonne Fu, a Moody's employee, sent an e-mail to a banker at Merrill Lynch in June 2007, pressuring the investment bank to lock down a big fee in exchange for a positive rating.

"We have spent significant amount of resource on this deal and it will be difficult for us to continue with this process if we do not have an agreement on the fee issue," Fu wrote. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's what the Beltway crowd still doesn't seem to get: If any of us stole from the company till, or forged documents, we'd be in jail right now. So average Americans, smarting from the fallout of these far-reaching and fraudulent deals that left so many people out of work, are wondering why there seems to be a separate standard of justice for Wall Street bankers. How do you respect your government when jail time only applies to the pot dealer down the street?

When are some of the bigwigs behind these scams going to prison? </div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/big-surprise-huh-ratings-agencies-ble)

Pathetic. You do exactly what you accuse others of doing and you can't see it.

Q </div></div>

If he, or anyone else, is still doing it a year and a half after Obama is out of office then that statement may be valid.

Ugh I can see it now, years from now the left will still be using Bush as an excuse for anything... the right will use Obama as an excuse for anything. Hmmm... the next president may be kinda lucky when it comes to accountability, come to think of it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Pathetic. You do exactly what you accuse others of doing and you can't see it.

Q </div></div>

If he, or anyone else, is still doing it a year and a half after Obama is out of office then that statement may be valid.

Ugh I can see it now, years from now the left will still be using Bush as an excuse for anything... the right will use Obama as an excuse for anything. Hmmm... the next president may be kinda lucky when it comes to accountability, come to think of it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>

Amazing!
When Clinton handed GW the keys to the WH, the country had a surplus, a projected surplus in ten years of 5 Trillion and Clinton had been paying off the Nat Debt!

Obama has had just more than a year to steady the boat and has succeeded but, Wall St is again making massive profits while Joe 6-pack is struggling.

The party who's policies caused the present crisis are now , after all the rhetoric about 'big bad Wall St' are voting en masse against any kind of reform!
What more proof do you need that the GOP represents their paymasters and not the people they are supposed to represent than the totally false claims for Mitch- right after meeting Wall St lobbyists?

Dodd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USoL-IHnKEs)

Mitch came out for the banks and Wall St and just lied. He lied to the Senate and the American people. Its tells you a lot about the Republican leadership.

Q

sack316

04-26-2010, 12:13 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Amazing!
When Clinton handed GW the keys to the WH, the country had a surplus, a projected surplus in ten years of 5 Trillion and Clinton had been paying off the Nat Debt!

Obama has had just more than a year to steady the boat and has succeeded but, Wall St is again making massive profits while Joe 6-pack is struggling.

The party who's policies caused the present crisis are now , after all the rhetoric about 'big bad Wall St' are voting en masse against any kind of reform!
What more proof do you need that the GOP represents their paymasters and not the people they are supposed to represent than the totally false claims for Mitch- right after meeting Wall St lobbyists?</div></div>

And what else? That the democrats have had firm control, and as you yourself say here, it's still basically the same. What more proof will you need to see The left is no better than the right?

Glass-Steagall act... undone by whom? No, that wasn't the entire cause for a lot of things that came down the road... but sure was the first domino that got tipped over.

Sack

Qtec

04-26-2010, 04:03 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What more proof will you need to see The left is no better than the right? </div></div>

The Left are trying to prevent another disaster and the Right is trying to stop them. Mitch couldn't even give a legitimate reason for opposing Wall St/bank reform, he just made stuff up.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul Krugman repeated his criticisms of Republicans he made last week and hit Mitch McConnell for his lie that resolution authority is setting the banks up for future bailouts.

Krugman: Anyone who says we need to be bipartisan should bear in mind that for the last several weeks Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader had been trying to stop reform with possibly the most dishonest argument ever made in the history of politics, which is the claim that having regulation of the banks actually bailing out the banks and that basically the argument boiled down to saying what we really need to do to deal with fires is abolish the fire department, because then people will know that they can't let their buildings burn in the first place, right. It's an incredible... so anyone who says bipartisan doesn't include the Senate Minority Leader. </div></div>

I understand why your world view is so stilted ... you get all of your news from the party.

I can lead a mind to knowledge, but I can't make it think.

LWW </div></div>

Q made a great case, with links. You on the other hand have nothing. St.

pooltchr

04-26-2010, 07:34 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Obama has had just more than a year to steady the boat and has succeeded but, Wall St is again making massive profits while Joe 6-pack is struggling.

Q </div></div>

Do you not see the irony in this statement? You state Obama has succeeded, and then state that nothing has changed.

The fact is, Obama has not succeeded. Not only has he been in office for 15 months (approaching half way through his term) but you seem to forget that the Dems controlled all of congress for 2 years prior to Obama getting into office.

The "official" unemployment numbers are still at double digits, and most realists agree that the actual unemployment is far greater. Businesses, for the most part, are not adding jobs, nor are they even bringing back employees who were laid off in the last 18 months.

States are struggling because revenues are down. The source of most of their revenues come from sales and income taxes. So it stands to reason that the drop in state revenue might have something to do with fewer people working and paying income taxes, and people not spending as much, thereby not contributing to the stream of sales tax revenue.

How exactly has Obama succeeded?

Steve

Stretch

04-26-2010, 08:58 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Obama has had just more than a year to steady the boat and has succeeded but, Wall St is again making massive profits while Joe 6-pack is struggling.

Q </div></div>

Do you not see the irony in this statement? You state Obama has succeeded, and then state that nothing has changed.

The fact is, Obama has not succeeded. Not only has he been in office for 15 months (approaching half way through his term) but you seem to forget that the Dems controlled all of congress for 2 years prior to Obama getting into office.

The "official" unemployment numbers are still at double digits, and most realists agree that the actual unemployment is far greater. Businesses, for the most part, are not adding jobs, nor are they even bringing back employees who were laid off in the last 18 months.

States are struggling because revenues are down. The source of most of their revenues come from sales and income taxes. So it stands to reason that the drop in state revenue might have something to do with fewer people working and paying income taxes, and people not spending as much, thereby not contributing to the stream of sales tax revenue.

How exactly has Obama succeeded?

Steve </div></div>

The Trouble is, there is very little consumer confidence. Not surprising given that the country was on the brink of financial and economic disaster rivaled only by the Great Depression. It took over ten years to claw your way back from that one. Did you think someone, anyone? Has a majic wand that once waved would cure all the ills of the US in a year and a half? St.

sack316

04-26-2010, 09:56 AM

last I checked, Mitch doesn't have the power to halt the government from getting things done.

I'm not saying republicans haven't been being pricks... I'm just saying the democrats haven't done much when they've had the chance either, despite what their rhetoric says.

Sack

LWW

04-26-2010, 09:58 AM

You are arguing with a true believer in the party ideology who simply cannot imagine that anyone wouldn't be a sheep in one herd or the other.

LWW

sack316

04-26-2010, 10:00 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Trouble is, there is very little consumer confidence. Not surprising given that the country was on the brink of financial and economic disaster rivaled only by the Great Depression. It took over ten years to claw your way back from that one. Did you think someone, anyone? Has a majic wand that once waved would cure all the ills of the US in a year and a half? St. </div></div>

Where do you think consumer confidence would be had the jobs situation been anywhere close to as advertised?

I don't think anyone believes anyone has that magic wand you speak of (but how nice would that be!). Well, nobody except those that sold themselves as magicians believe it anyway /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

pooltchr

04-26-2010, 10:02 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Did you think someone, anyone? Has a majic wand that once waved would cure all the ills of the US in a year and a half? St. </div></div>

No, but I would have liked to have seen someone take action to move us in the right direction. Stimulus was a joke, nothing more than redistribution of tax dollars under the guise of injecting money into the economy. In fact, all it did was move tax dollars from one area to another. You can't stimulate the economy by taking money out of it, and then giving it back.

So what did Obama spend his first 15 months working on? A takeover of the healthcare insurance industry? Did that help the economy? Recent studies are starting to show that the cost savings were smoke and mirrors, and in fact, it is going to cost far more than any of the official projections.

Was anything done to help business which is the foundation of our economy? Not at all. In fact, the government continues to strengthen it's grasp on business.

As Q pointed out, Wall Street is making money, and main street is still struggling. Is that any different than the last year of the previous president's administration? We are still going strong in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Obama said we would be out of there in 16 months. (OK, he has another month left on that one)

The largest job growth in the last year has been in government. Government jobs do not help the economy, since government does not produce anything. Government growth simply exacerbates the economic problems.

So you tell me...what specifically has Obama done in his first 15 months in office?

Steve

LWW

04-26-2010, 10:14 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Trouble is, there is very little consumer confidence. Not surprising given that the country was on the brink of financial and economic disaster rivaled only by the Great Depression. It took over ten years to claw your way back from that one. Did you think someone, anyone?</div></div>

1 - The near collapse was brought about by a combination of the fraud and criminal activities of Raines/Johnson/Gorelich/Frank/Dodd//Waters/Obama and the abject cowardice displayed by Bush in caving in to he left in a foolish attempt to get the unappeasable radical left to like him.

2 - Obama was an integral part in bringing the disaster to fruition, beginning with his days as a community agitator for ACORN and through his time in the senate.

3 - The great depression was also worsened on by state intervention in free markets.

4 - It took over 10 years to claw our way out ... and the state was the reason.

Facts ... they are such stubborn things.

LWW

Chopstick

04-26-2010, 12:15 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
When are some of the bigwigs behind these scams going to prison? </div></div> link (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/big-surprise-huh-ratings-agencies-ble)

Good question.

Q [/quote]

That has been my question from the beginning. How does a CDO with 70% sub prime paper in it get a AAA rating? It's for Fannie, GS and others to create these things. It is Standard & Poors, and Moody's that assign the rating and the rating is what determines who buys the issues. To date, no action has been taken against any ratings agency. How is this possible?

So, Obama sics the SEC on Goldman with a possible fine that does not even represent a significant percentage of Goldman's daily income. That's supposed to be action? GS is free to create any kind of a bond they want but if the ratings agency labels it as junk no institution is going to buy it. The real crime occurred in the ratings and this is the first time any one has said anything to them. I'll bet it goes nowhere.

LWW

04-26-2010, 12:35 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That has been my question from the beginning. How does a CDO with 70% sub prime paper in it get a AAA rating? It's for Fannie, GS and others to create these things.</div></div>

That's an easy one.

Franklin Raines perpetrated the largest account scandal in history.

Franklin Raines cooked the books to make junk paper appear to be performing like the AAA paper FANNIE notes had always performed in the past.

Franklin Raines used his political payola to get his puppets in congress to imply that racism was behind the efforts of Bush/McCain to get the regulators to actually do their required duties.

Franklin Raines got out before the house caved in with some fines being paid ... and before it was discovered that the worst case scenario the regulators had imagined were wildly optimistic.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NEW YORK – Former Clinton administration budget adviser and current Obama housing adviser Franklin Raines perpetrated an Enron-like accounting scandal as chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, resulting in his receiving millions in compensation over a six-year period.

Raines and two other top Fannie Mae executives agreed to pay $24.7 million, including a $2 million fine, to settle a civil lawsuit filed in December 2006. It accused Raines and the two other executives of manipulating Fannie Mae earnings, allowing executives to pocket hundreds of millions in bonuses from 1998 to 2004, according to the Associated Press. ...

As recently as July 17, the Washington Post ran a profile piece on Raines claiming he “has been quietly constructing a new life for himself,” in which Raines takes “calls from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

Prior to the settlement, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, known as OFHEO, the government regulator that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had sought $100 million against Raines and the other two executives, plus restitution totaling more than $115 million in bonus money tied to the accounting scheme manipulation.

Fannie Mae separately paid a $400 million civil fine in a settlement with OFHEO and the Securities and Exchange Commission in an agreement to make top-to-bottom changes in its accounting procedures to avoid future Raines-like accounting manipulation scandals.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s top account accused Fannie Mae under Raines’ leadership of misstating earnings for three and a half years, leading to an estimated $9 billion earnings restatement that wiped out 40 percent of Fannie Mae’s profits from 2001-2004, according to Business Week.

Central to the Raines accounting scandal was a strategy to “cook the books” of Fannie Mae to show the type of earnings that would trigger hundreds of millions of bonuses to Raines and other key Fannie Mae executives.

When the scandal surfaced, Raines resigned from Fannie Mae in December 2004, with a $19 million severance package, according to the Associated Press.

The Raines scandal surfaced in 2004 when charges Fannie Mae accounting manager Roger Barnes had been making since 1999 surfaced. He said Fannie Mae had been manipulating its earnings through “cookie jar” accounting to justify payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to top executives.

In his 26-page testimony before OFHEA, Barnes detailed multiple Fannie Mae deviations for Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, or GAAP, and his repeated efforts to bring these irregularities to a wide range of Fannie Mae managers and executives, all without positive result.

Barnes said he left Fannie Mae in October 2003 because he felt “forced out” once it excluded him from working on the OFHEA investigation.

“As a result of Fannie Mae’s refusals to take the concerns I had raised about financial and accounting practices seriously, and the retaliation I faced for raising these concerns, I had no choice but to separate from the Company in October 2003,” Barnes said on page 25 of his written Oct. 6, 2004, testimony to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services.

Still, the OFHEA report on the Raines scandal cited Barnes 34 times in the first 80 pages of its 200-page report.

Barnes, an African American, reportedly received a $1 million settlement after threatening a whistleblower lawsuit citing racial discrimination, according to USA Today. </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;FACTS ... THEY ARE SUCH STUBBORN THINGS&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/obama-housing-adviser-franklin-raines-perpetrated-an-enron-like-accounting-scandal-as-chief-executive-officer-of-fannie-mae/)